alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of State of New York, Respondent, v William Johnson, Appellant.

[942 NYS2d 912]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John L. Michalski, A.J.), entered January 28, 2011 in a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10. The order committed respondent to a secure treatment facility.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10, respondent appeals from an order revoking his *1537prior regimen of strict and intensive supervision and treatment (SIST) and committing him to a secure treatment facility *(see*§ 10.11 [d] [1], [4]). We reject respondent’s contention that he was denied due process when Supreme Court denied his request for an independent psychiatric evaluation. An indigent respondent in a civil commitment proceeding does not have an absolute right to an independent psychiatric evaluation *(see Goetz v Crosson,*967 F2d 29, 36-37 [1992]). Instead, a right to present the testimony of an independent psychiatrist arises only where “such testimony is necessary to a reliable assessment” of an indigent respondent’s mental condition *(id.).*Here, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying respondent’s request for an independent psychiatric evaluation, which was made during the trial after petitioner had rested and respondent had called two witnesses. We also note that this was a SIST revocation hearing, not an initial proceeding under Mental Hygiene Law article 10, and that respondent stipulated that he had a mental abnormality within the meaning of Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03 (i). We further conclude that petitioner established at the hearing by the requisite clear and convincing evidence that respondent is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement *(see*§ 10.03 [e]; § 10.07 [f]). Present — Scudder, P.J., Fahey, Lindley and Martoche, JJ.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 96-60343 Summary Calendar

_____________________

STEVEN T. NICHOLS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JIMMY SIMMONS, ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:95-CV-130-S-D

_________________________________________________________________

January 10, 1997 Before GARWOOD, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Steven T. Nichols was assaulted while in the drunk tank of the

Chickasaw County Jail. The district court granted summary judgment

in favor of the defendants on Nichols’s claim that the county’s

policy allowing inmates to roam freely around the old part of the

jail demonstrated a deliberate indifference t o the safety of-2-

detainees. Nichols has abandoned this issue on appeal. S ee Yohey

v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993).

For the first time on appeal, Nichols asserts that the

Chickasaw County Sheriff’s Office had a policy of using prison

trusties to assist the deputies in policing the jail and that this

policy demonstrates a deliberate indifference to the safety of

pretrial detainees. Nichols has not demonstrated plain error with

respect to this claim. S ee Robertson v. Plano City of Tex.

, 70

F.3d 21, 23 (5th Cir. 1995) (citing United States v. Calverley

, 37

F.3d 16 0, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (addressing “plain

error” standard), c ert. denied

, 115 S.Ct. 1266 (1995), and

Highlands Ins. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. , 27 F.3d 1027 (5th

Cir. 1994) (applying the Calverley standard to civil cases), cert.

denied , 115 S.Ct. 903 (1995)).

A F F I R M E D.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 911 

To establish the sense of Congress that Congress should enact, and the 

President should sign, bipartisan legislation to strengthen public safety 

and to enhance wireless communications. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 9, 2011 

Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself and Mrs. HUTCHISON) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To establish the sense of Congress that Congress should 

enact, and the President should sign, bipartisan legislation to strengthen public safety and to enhance wireless 

communications. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Strengthening Public5 safety and Enhancing Communications Through Reform, 

6 Utilization, and Modernization Act’’ or the ‘‘SPECTRUM 

7 Act’’. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 911 IS

1 SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS. 

2 It is the sense of Congress that Congress should 

3 enact, and the President should sign, bipartisan legislation 

4 to strengthen public safety and to enhance wireless com5 munications by— 

6 (1) providing sufficient wireless spectrum and 

7 other resources to build a nationwide interoperable 

8 wireless public safety broadband network; 

9 (2) encouraging more efficient, flexible, and ef10 fective use of spectrum, a valuable and finite public 

11 resource; 

12 (3) promoting voluntary market mechanisms to 

13 ensure the optimal allocation of spectrum; 

14 (4) reforming the Federal Government’s spec15 trum management practices; and 

16 (5) engaging in advanced research and develop17 ment into emerging wireless technologies. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1



NANOGEN, INC.



CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY

RULE
13a-14(a) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934



I, Howard C. Birndorf,
Chief Executive Officer of Nanogen, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), hereby certify that, based on my knowledge:



|(1) |  | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
|--- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|November 13, 2003 |  | HOWARD C. BIRNDORF     
|----------------- |  | -----------------------
|                  |  | Howard C. Birndorf     
|                  |  | Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 891 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 891

  To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for the 
 recognition of attending physician assistants as attending physicians 
                       to serve hospice patients.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 5, 2011

  Mr. Grassley (for himself and Mr. Conrad) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for the 
 recognition of attending physician assistants as attending physicians 
                       to serve hospice patients.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Medicare Hospice Care Access Act of 
2011''.

SEC. 2. RECOGNITION OF ATTENDING PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS AS ATTENDING 
              PHYSICIANS TO SERVE HOSPICE PATIENTS.

    (a) Recognition of Attending Physician Assistants as Attending 
Physicians To Serve Hospice Patients.--
            (1) In general.--Section 1861(dd)(3)(B) of the Social 
        Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(dd)(3)(B)) is amended--
                    (A) by striking ``or nurse'' and inserting ``, the 
                nurse''; and
                    (B) by inserting ``, or the physician assistant (as 
                defined in such subsection)'' after ``subsection 
                (aa)(5))''.
            (2) Clarification of hospice role of physician 
        assistants.--Section 1814(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the Social Security 
        Act (42 U.S.C. 1395f(a)(7)(A)(i)(I)) is amended by inserting 
        ``or a physician assistant'' after ``a nurse practitioner''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to items and services furnished on or after January 1, 2012.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2021263EN.01001801.xml

| 5.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 263/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 263/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2021 — Puma v EUIPO — Gemma Group (Representation of a bounding feline)

(Case T-510/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark representing a bounding feline - Earlier international figurative marks representing a bounding feline - Relative ground for refusal - No injury to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 263/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf and S. Hanne, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Gemma Group Srl (Cerasolo Ausa, Italy)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 April 2019 (Case R 2057/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Puma and Gemma Group.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Puma SE to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Puma SE to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                           5
       

<S>                                 <C>                  
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       3-MOS              
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1999        
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-1999        
<PERIOD-END>                        MAR-31-1999        
<CASH>                                   65,030            
<SECURITIES>                                  0 
<RECEIVABLES>                            34,896     
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0          
<INVENTORY>                             155,920     
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        283,378     
<PP&E>                                  217,897     
<DEPRECIATION>                        ( 119,175)   
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        1,147,094   
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 2,902,197 
<BONDS>                                       0        
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0 
<PREFERRED>                                   0          
<COMMON>                                  3,901    
<OTHER-SE>                           (4,198,365) 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          1,147,094   
<SALES>                                  52,418 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         52,418   
<CGS>                                    36,590     
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           557,081  
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              0           
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       77,153   
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        (618,406)  
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0           
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    (618,406) 
<DISCONTINUED>                                0          
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0        
<CHANGES>                                     0          
<NET-INCOME>                           (618,406) 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              (.16) 
<EPS-DILUTED>                              (.16) 

        

</TABLE>
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-16-00212-CR

Tommy George Dooley

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From the 355th District Court

of Hood County (CR13341)

March 1, 2018

Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth

(p)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the tria l court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Bonnie Sudderth

Chief Ju stice Bonnie Sudderth
Unassociated Document


    
      

    

    Exhibit
10.57

     

    CORPORATE
PROMISSORY NOTE


     

    
      
        	
                $25,000

              	
                San
      Diego, California

              	
                December
      11, 2009

              


      

    

     

     For
value received, receipt of which is acknowledged, DotVN, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, (“Maker”) promises to pay to Thomas Johnson, San Diego, California,
(“Payee”), or order, at such place as Payee may designate, the sum of
TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NO CENTS ($25,000.00), plus interest at the
rate of ten percent (10%) per annum, on March 11, 2010 (the “Due
Date”).

     

    If action
be instituted on this note, Maker promises to pay such sum as the Court may fix
as attorneys fees.

     

    This note
will inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the respective heirs,
executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the Maker and
Payee.

     

    IN
WITNESS THERETO, Maker has affixed its signature by a duly authorized officer
under the seal of this corporation.


     

    
      
        
          
            
              	
                       

                    	
                      DOT
      VN, INC.

                    
	 
      	 
      
	 
      	
                      /s/  Lee Johnson

                    
	 
      	
                      By:  
      Lee Johnson

                    
	 
      	
                      Its: 
       President

                    


            

          

        

      

    

     

    CORPORATE
PROMISSORY NOTE
**Exhibit
31.2**
 
 Certifications
 SECTION
302
 I, Frank
D. Puissegur, certify that:
 
 1. I have
reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of American Commerce Solutions,
Inc.;
 
 2. Based
on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual
report;
 
 3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and
 cash
flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual
report;
 
 4. The
registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:
 
 a)
designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this annual report is being prepared;
 
 b)
evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
 
 c)
presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation
Date;
 
 5. The
registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons
 performing
the equivalent functions):
 
 a) all
significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which
could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize
and report financial data
 and have
identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal
controls; and
 
 b) any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls;
and
 
 6. The
registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this annual
report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in
other factors that could significantly affect
 internal
controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any
corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses.
 **American
      Commerce Solutions, Inc.**Date: May
      27, 2005
    By:
    /s/ Frank
      D. PuissegurFrank
      D. PuissegurChief
      Financial Officer, Principal Financial Officer and
  Director
#### Joan Masella, Appellant, v John Masella, Respondent.

In a matrimonial action, the plaintiff wife appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Palella, J.), dated December 31, 1984, as denied that branch of her motion which was for a preliminary injunction enjoining the defendant husband from selling or transferring his interest in a business and building.

Order affirmed, insofar as appealed from, with costs.

We agree with Special Term that under the facts at bar plaintiff has failed to establish a sufficient basis to warrant the issuance of a preliminary injunction. Mollen, P. J., Titone, O’Connor and Rubin, JJ., concur.
# Official Journal C 172/2022

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 172 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6526 April 2022 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 172

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6526 April 2022

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2022/C 172/01 | Euro exchange rates — 25 April 2022 | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2022/C 172/01

Euro exchange rates — 25 April 2022

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2022/C 172/02 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10565 – VOLKSWAGEN / TRINITY / EUROPCAR) (
  1
  ) | 2 |
| 2022/C 172/03 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10684 – SWISS LIFE / VAUBAN / WASCOSA) – Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 4 |
| 2022/C 172/04 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10688 – AXA / ATALANTE) – Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 6 |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2022/C 172/05 | Publication of a communication of approval of a standard amendment to a product specification for a name in the wine sector referred to in Article 17(2) and (3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33 | 7 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2022/C 172/02

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10565 – VOLKSWAGEN / TRINITY / EUROPCAR) (
  1
  )

1

2

2022/C 172/03

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10684 – SWISS LIFE / VAUBAN / WASCOSA) – Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

4

2022/C 172/04

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10688 – AXA / ATALANTE) – Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

6

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2022/C 172/05

Publication of a communication of approval of a standard amendment to a product specification for a name in the wine sector referred to in Article 17(2) and (3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33

7

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Willie Kendal, Also Known as Willie Kendall, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lerner, J.), rendered October 3, 1979, convicting him of attempted robbery in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Mollen, P. J., Gibbons, Brown, Niehoff and Fiber, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 2 (d)


DESCRIPTION OF SECURITIES REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE EXCHANGE ACT


As of December 31, 2023, Lloyds Bank plc (“ Lloyds Bank ,” the “ Company ,” “ we ,” “ us ” and “ our ”) had the following series of securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:


Title of each classTrading SymbolName of each exchange on which registered3.500% Senior Notes due 2025LYG/25The New York Stock Exchange


Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meanings given to them in Lloyds Banks’s annual report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023.


DEBT SECURITIES


The notes listed on the New York Stock Exchange and set forth on the cover page to Lloyds Bank’s annual report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023 have been issued by Lloyds Bank plc. The notes were issued pursuant to an effective registration statement and a related prospectus and prospectus supplement (if applicable) setting forth the terms of the notes.


The following table sets forth the date of the registration statement, date of the base prospectus and date of issuance for the notes (the “ Notes ”).


Date of Base ProspectusSeriesJune 7, 20133.500% Senior Notes due 2025


The following description of our Notes is a summary and does not purport to be complete and is qualified in its entirety by the full terms of the Notes and the relevant indenture thereto, which are available at www.sec.com. The description includes the description of notes in the base prospectus together with the description of notes for the issuance thereunder. Any reference to “ accompanying prospectus ” refers to the base prospectus for the issuance. To the extent language in the prospectus supplement modifies language in the base prospectus or there is any inconsistency between the information in the base prospectus and the prospectus supplement, the terms of the prospectus supplement govern.


A. Base Prospectus – dated June 7, 2013:


Please refer to pages 36-45 of Exhibit 2(d) of the annual report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019 (the “ 2019 Annual Report ”).


1. Prospectus Supplement – 3.500% Senior Notes due 2025:


Please refer to pages 50-55 of Exhibit 2(d) of the 2019 Annual Report.